EQ - Compression ...Which First?

D

D-Cipher

New member
I read these forums so much , but was always too lazy to register

but im gettin tired of bullshit advice from people who dont know what they're talking about.


so my question is ....Which goes first in The chain, EQ or compression...

see i usually use the Audio Track Plugin for waves, which has both built in ...and i've heard people say compression first, and others say EQ...

any opinions?


the music type is Hip Hop btw....not that that should matter too much
 
D-Cipher said:
the music type is Hip Hop btw....not that that should matter too much
Click to expand...


Actually, for hip-hop, I would highly recommend eq'ing first, then compressing. While for reggae and polka, I would suggest the exact opposite.


D-Cipher said:
... im gettin tired of bullshit advice from people who dont know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...


Oh, right. Sorry. First off, it's not like your track is going to suck all of a sudden because you accidentally reversed the order of EQ and compression. :D Aw man! That track was so slammin! Why did I have to go do that? !

And it's not like someone listening to your stuff is going to say: "D-Cipher, you've got some really great stuff here ... but something sounds wrong: did you reverse the EQ and compression order or something?"

Seriously, though, the only thing to look out for is this: If you compress with the idea in mind of controlling the peaks ... then you go and slap a lot of EQ on it, you might just wind up with a bunch of peaks again. So in other words, you might wind up un-doing some of your compression. For that reason, I would just play it safe and EQ before you compress.
 
You can do either. It sounds different depending on which is first, both are useful sounds. It depends on what you are trying to do. You can either EQ a compressed signal or compress an EQ'd signal.
 
chessrock said:
Seriously, though, the only thing to look out for is this: If you compress with the idea in mind of controlling the peaks ... then you go and slap a lot of EQ on it, you might just wind up with a bunch of peaks again. So in other words, you might wind up un-doing some of your compression. For that reason, I would just play it safe and EQ before you compress.
Click to expand...

but on the other side of things....other people prefer not to EQ before compressing. if you sit for 30 minutes trying to get that perfect vocal or guitar EQed using additive EQ (boosting certain frequencies)....why would you want to go and smash down on them right afterwards. it can kind of a waste of your 30 minutes or however long it took you.

not saying chessrock was wrong at all...'cause he wasn't. just two different ways to think of it, Cipher.
:)
 
Look Benny ... this is life-altering stuff we're talking about here. Millions of audio tracks literally hang in the balance. The future of music as we know it could depend on this very thread. And I can't believe you're taking this so lightly.


:D
 
In general people tend to compress first. Try them both and experiment so you can see what they both do. Then you will have a better idea for when you should use each:)

On analog consoles people almost always compress first because the EQ comes after the insert point. With channel strips though, it's often the opposite:)
 
My "rule of thumb" is CORRECTIVE EQ first, almost without fail. You don't want rumble, sibilance, overtones, honky mids, etc., bouncing the compressor. If there are issues like that on the way in, the compressor will react to them, and good luck trying to EQ out "mud" that's being compressed.

Followed by, of course, compression...

Followed by SHAPING EQ - Adding "air" or filling in a little midrange, etc.

Of course, there are exceptions, but that's the "typical" chain.
 
Massive Master said:
My "rule of thumb" is CORRECTIVE EQ first, almost without fail. You don't want rumble, sibilance, overtones, honky mids, etc., bouncing the compressor. If there are issues like that on the way in, the compressor will react to them, and good luck trying to EQ out "mud" that's being compressed.

Followed by, of course, compression...

Followed by SHAPING EQ - Adding "air" or filling in a little midrange, etc.
Click to expand...

exacly what i was going to say :D

I also put an eq before the compression to cut extreme lows and allow me to tweak (cut) anything that would be too noisy once compressed or trick the compressor - i seldom add an eq after but when i do i tend to watch the levels closely to make sure anything i boost doesn't cause the levels to hit 0db (although i have added a limiter after the 2nd eq as well if i'm in total squash mode for a given song...)
 
Which goes first in The chain, EQ or compression?
Click to expand...

For what I do it works best using EQ before compression. I use the Waves Lin EQ and multiband comp.

I'm usually using the plugs to control the low end and lower mids on nylon string guitar. The linear multiband comp works as a dynamic equalizer just on its own, but the Lin EQ's low band filter does something to the sound that just sounds really good, whether it's boosting or cutting. So if any overall level changes are needed below 800 Hz or so, I'll use a little EQ, then if the dynamics are fluctuating too much, I'll add some gentle compression in the freq bands of 0-200 Hz, and 200-800 Hz. I usually leave the high end alone with both plugs, but if any EQ is needed there, it'll come before the compressor too. I generally don't compress the highs at all. I'm going for the most natural "as it sounds in the room but cheating with a little reverb" philosophy though; If I was using the comp to help with blending a mix or coloring the sound I might approach it differently.

Tim
 
Massive Master said:
My "rule of thumb" is CORRECTIVE EQ first, almost without fail. You don't want rumble, sibilance, overtones, honky mids, etc., bouncing the compressor. If there are issues like that on the way in, the compressor will react to them, and good luck trying to EQ out "mud" that's being compressed.

Followed by, of course, compression...

Followed by SHAPING EQ - Adding "air" or filling in a little midrange, etc.

Of course, there are exceptions, but that's the "typical" chain.
Click to expand...

Hey Mr. Massive (dont know what else to call you.. lol). I'm having a bit of an issue right now with a track that the rapper is doing this real laid back type delivery causing all this low end to pop up. I used as much subtractive eq as possible to get rid of the slight rumbling that happens ever so often but it still happens a tad bit (annoys the crap out of me). But if I dig any deeper into the low end it'll start affecting the overall sound of the vocals. Is there some compression I can do or something to that effect to control the rumbling??

(sorry for the thread jacking! :D )
 
Massive Master said:
My "rule of thumb" is CORRECTIVE EQ first, almost without fail. You don't want rumble, sibilance, overtones, honky mids, etc., bouncing the compressor. If there are issues like that on the way in, the compressor will react to them, and good luck trying to EQ out "mud" that's being compressed.

Followed by, of course, compression...

Followed by SHAPING EQ - Adding "air" or filling in a little midrange, etc.

Of course, there are exceptions, but that's the "typical" chain.
Click to expand...
That's what I meant.
 
As much as I can't stand MBC's for the most part, yeah, things like this are what they're made for.

Voxengo's Soniformer is a pretty amazing piece for this type of thing also - Normally much less obtrusive than a traditional maul-the-band compressor. A tiny, but intuitive learning curve also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top